
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Additional evidence: specific actors, environmental and labour provisions, and PTA choice}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\hline
 & Model 7C & Model 8C \\
\hline
(Intercept)                           & $-2.84 \; (0.30)^{***}$ & $-2.91 \; (0.30)^{***}$ \\
Services                              & $-0.06 \; (0.21)$       & $-0.04 \; (0.21)$       \\
IPR                                   & $0.11 \; (0.19)$        & $0.07 \; (0.19)$        \\
Environment                           & $1.62 \; (0.23)^{***}$  & $1.90 \; (0.22)^{***}$  \\
Labour                                & $1.79 \; (0.22)^{***}$  & $1.75 \; (0.27)^{***}$  \\
Environmental citizen groups          & $-1.18 \; (0.52)^{*}$   &                         \\
Environ. x Environ. citizen groups    & $1.93 \; (0.66)^{**}$   &                         \\
Labour policy citizen groups          &                         & $-0.18 \; (0.35)$       \\
Labour x Labour policy citizen groups &                         & $0.05 \; (0.42)$        \\
\hline
AIC                                   & $681.68$                & $691.83$                \\
Deviance                              & $667.68$                & $677.83$                \\
N                                     & $702$                   & $702$                   \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\scriptsize{\parbox{0.65\linewidth}{$^{***}p<0.001$; $^{**}p<0.01$; $^{*}p<0.05$. Estimates from an logistic regression. Standard errors in parentheses. Dependent variable (PTA choice) is a dummy.}}}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:additional_evidence2_choice}
\end{center}
\end{table}
